Gabbin' About God
Apr. 16th, 2008 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatTonight, I bring you three items, all somewhat related to religion:
1. Both Pat Robertson and some preacher whom John McCain idolizes have apparently tried to claim that Islam isn't a real religion. Then again, Jack Chick has said the same thing about Christianity, although he means it in a totally different (but equally, if not more, nonsensical) way. His buddy Kent Hovind has claimed that atheism and evolution ARE religions. Some guy I knew on the Internet a few years ago claimed that atheism is a religion because it was a choice for the "religion" question on government forms. Can't argue with that logic, can you? :P I guess there is some debate over what can be considered a religion. I remember some teacher or professor I had somewhere along the line (I honestly can't remember which one) claiming that Confucianism and Taoism don't count as religions because they don't include deities. I'd say they fit pretty well under the dictionary.com definition, though. What I don't get, though, is how calling something a fake religion implies that it's bad. Whether or not something is a religion isn't a value judgment. Well, unless you're saying that any religion is better than no religion, which brings us to our next item.
2. Americans don't trust atheists. According to a survey from a few years ago (which I'm just discovering now, because I'm behind the times), the participants would be more upset if their kids married atheists than members of other minority groups. Really, though, would you want to marry someone who thought you were going to Hell (or, to look at it from the opposite perspective, someone you thought was going to Hell)? I've always kind of wondered how couples with vastly different religious, philosophical, or political beliefs manage to get along. That's not to say that I think people should only date others with the exact same beliefs, but I don't know that it would work so well if one person find the other's personal philosophy morally repugnant.
3. Watching The Ten Commandments made me think about how I've seen mentions of the similarities between the story of Moses and those of other semitic heroes, like Sargon being found as a baby in the river, and Hammurabi receiving the law on a mountain. I think there's definitely something in this, especially considering that I don't know of any non-Biblical evidence that Moses actually existed. (The movie actually offers its own explanation for this, by saying that his name was removed from Egyptian records after he turned traitor to the nation.) I've seen this same idea about mythological figures being rip-offs of each other used many other times, by believers and non-believers alike: the Biblical Esther was originally Ishtar, Samson was a solar deity (his long hair symbolizes the rays of the Sun), Abraham is Hammurabi with his name rearranged, Marduk is Nimrod, all fertility goddesses are versions of Semiramis, etc. I'm sure there's something in some of these comparisons, but I think it's possible to take it too far. I can just imagine someone in the sixtieth century or thereabouts looking back and saying, "Hey, Martin Luther King and Gandhi both used non-violent protest against racist oppressors, so they must be the same person! And Gandhi's title "Mahatma" is obviously just the name 'Martin' transliterated into Hindi." People can draw connections between just about anything if they really want to.
1. Both Pat Robertson and some preacher whom John McCain idolizes have apparently tried to claim that Islam isn't a real religion. Then again, Jack Chick has said the same thing about Christianity, although he means it in a totally different (but equally, if not more, nonsensical) way. His buddy Kent Hovind has claimed that atheism and evolution ARE religions. Some guy I knew on the Internet a few years ago claimed that atheism is a religion because it was a choice for the "religion" question on government forms. Can't argue with that logic, can you? :P I guess there is some debate over what can be considered a religion. I remember some teacher or professor I had somewhere along the line (I honestly can't remember which one) claiming that Confucianism and Taoism don't count as religions because they don't include deities. I'd say they fit pretty well under the dictionary.com definition, though. What I don't get, though, is how calling something a fake religion implies that it's bad. Whether or not something is a religion isn't a value judgment. Well, unless you're saying that any religion is better than no religion, which brings us to our next item.
2. Americans don't trust atheists. According to a survey from a few years ago (which I'm just discovering now, because I'm behind the times), the participants would be more upset if their kids married atheists than members of other minority groups. Really, though, would you want to marry someone who thought you were going to Hell (or, to look at it from the opposite perspective, someone you thought was going to Hell)? I've always kind of wondered how couples with vastly different religious, philosophical, or political beliefs manage to get along. That's not to say that I think people should only date others with the exact same beliefs, but I don't know that it would work so well if one person find the other's personal philosophy morally repugnant.
3. Watching The Ten Commandments made me think about how I've seen mentions of the similarities between the story of Moses and those of other semitic heroes, like Sargon being found as a baby in the river, and Hammurabi receiving the law on a mountain. I think there's definitely something in this, especially considering that I don't know of any non-Biblical evidence that Moses actually existed. (The movie actually offers its own explanation for this, by saying that his name was removed from Egyptian records after he turned traitor to the nation.) I've seen this same idea about mythological figures being rip-offs of each other used many other times, by believers and non-believers alike: the Biblical Esther was originally Ishtar, Samson was a solar deity (his long hair symbolizes the rays of the Sun), Abraham is Hammurabi with his name rearranged, Marduk is Nimrod, all fertility goddesses are versions of Semiramis, etc. I'm sure there's something in some of these comparisons, but I think it's possible to take it too far. I can just imagine someone in the sixtieth century or thereabouts looking back and saying, "Hey, Martin Luther King and Gandhi both used non-violent protest against racist oppressors, so they must be the same person! And Gandhi's title "Mahatma" is obviously just the name 'Martin' transliterated into Hindi." People can draw connections between just about anything if they really want to.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 01:29 pm (UTC)Also, I've often found heard that sort of thing w/r/t atheists/untrustworthiness, which is sort of depressing. I don't quite get it, but oh well. I'll have to be the "Yeah, I got no problem with 'em... but would you want your SISTER to marry one?" one! Yaaaay!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 01:34 pm (UTC)Not wanting your kids to marry an atheist doesn't have to do with trust, it has to do with compatibility? I think there is a perception that religions have more in common with one another, so if the future in-law has at least some faith, they acknowledge the value of faith.
I've always kind of wondered how couples with vastly different religious, philosophical, or political beliefs manage to get along.
At least one of you has to be really flexible. ;p I'm married to an atheist, in fact. A former believer who felt that the God concept was too internally inconsistent, plus if God is a Father, he is a lousy one, hence, any reasonable thinking person should reject God. The idiotic behavior of some professed Christians sealed the deal for him, so he has found me a bit of a conundrum - a thinking person who believes. hee hee.
He hasn't said so, but I suspect he feels that if he just calmly talks to me about this logically for long enough, I, as a rational woman, will see the light! Whereas, I have failed to proselytize to him utterly, sort of the reverse of what you'd expect?
So, I guess you have to treat it the way you do any other need at cross purposes to your own - each side has to respect the others need or opinion?
I take it you and Beth are both confirmed atheists?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:05 pm (UTC)Maybe it has to do with trust for the parents, but compatibility for the person actually contemplating marriage?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 03:37 pm (UTC)I remember when I was a "newish" Christian and Christian friends talking about only dating Christians in high school. At the time my 14-year-old self thought it was kind of dumb, but later I realized how it would make sense. Now that my own personal Christianity has changed a lot, I don't think I'd necessarily not date someone because they weren't Christian. Most of my friends aren't Christian anyway and it's not like I'd stop being a friend with someone when I get to know them enough that I realize they're not Christian. I think that has a lot to do with not really growing up Christian outside of going to Christian pre-school and daycare. I don't know how many Christians would have the mentality to refuse to develop relationships with people who aren't Christian anyway, but to me, doing that is something I personally would find silly for myself.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:16 pm (UTC)But then why single out Islam? It pretty much goes without saying that a follower of any particular religion is going to consider all of the others to be at least somewhat wrong. I think Americans nowadays tend to believe that Islam is dangerous in a way that Judaism and other non-Christian faiths aren't.
I don't know how many Christians would have the mentality to refuse to develop relationships with people who aren't Christian anyway, but to me, doing that is something I personally would find silly for myself.
I guess it depends on your approach to Christianity (or, for that matter, whatever religion it is a person follows). I guess I can see why someone of the "anyone who believes differently than me is going to Hell" school of thought would be reluctant to form close friendships with people who DON'T believe the same things, and would want to try to convert any differently-believing friends they did have. On the other hand, someone with a more live-and-let-live attitude probably wouldn't have any problem being friends with, and even dating, people with different beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 06:37 pm (UTC)I always thought that was kind of sensible myself, but having seen your reaction it made me think about it and I realized, yeah, that people who have a problem with organized religion, for example, WOULDN'T take too kindly to having their beliefs classified AS a religion, would they? This explains why nobody who took my survey that I made a few years ago answered the question "What religion would you be if you weren't the religion you are now?" correctly (they all said "I don't believe in religion" or "I don't have a religion" even though I SAID in the QUESTION "Count agnosticism and atheism as a religion for purposes of the question")! So if that's the case, what SHOULD the title be? Philosophical Worldview? Religious Outlook? Religious Stance, even?
I agree with some previous commenters that not wanting your children to marry atheists is not so much about trustworthiness as compatibility. It OFTEN works, but where there are kids involved you have to be, um, compromising? And religion is a subject that can be difficult to compromise on. We're raising our kids Catholic, but J is more an agnostic than an atheist and he knows my religion is important to me and he's ambivalent to religion, but if he was AGAINST religion then we'd have issues, wouldn't we! It could have to do with the strength of each parties beliefs in general, not just religion vs. atheism-- if two people are very staunch in believing very different things, that's going to cause some tripping up in the childrearing department, but if one person is more active in their faith or lack thereof than the other, then that's the faith (or lack thereof-- here's where we need that new all-encompassing word for religion) that the kids are raised in. And even without kids, hard times can trigger different reactions in people with vastly different world views. There have been times lately when I've felt, "This is something J really needs to pray about-- but he doesn't pray!" and it's sort of made me depressed.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:21 pm (UTC)I guess "religious stance" would work. There are different sorts of atheism and agnosticism, and I think "philosophical worldview" might only apply to some of them. If you don't believe in God but don't let that impact your life one way or the other, I wouldn't say that's really a philosophy or a worldview. Active disbelief, on the other hand, would probably count as a philosophy.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-17 08:55 pm (UTC)Then you guys don't have much to fight about in this area of discourse, I guess. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:22 pm (UTC)